Now that all arguments are in, perhaps my initial vote was hasty. If it's OK, I change my vote to
-1 in favour the directory approach outlined by Greg. (Sorry Todd ;-) Cheers, Chris 2009/3/27 Greg Brown <[email protected]> > Sorry, one additional thought. :-) It may be that embedding the version > number in the file name of a single-JAR library makes sense. However, Pivot > is already composed of multiple JARs, and may grow to include more in the > future. For this reason alone, I'd suggest that it makes more sense to apply > a directory-based versioning strategy to Pivot. > > And that really is the last I'll say on this. > > :-) > > > On Friday, March 27, 2009, at 01:04PM, "Greg Brown" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>Tomcat's an application, not a library, so their requirements are very > >>different. > > > >I might argue that Tomcat and Pivot are both platforms - one is for > running applications on a server, the other on the client. The JRE itself is > also a platform, and it also does not embed the version number in its JAR > files. > > > >That's my last post on this thread as well. Let's vote and see how it > turns out. > > > >G > > > > > > >
